ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[docrob57]

docrob57,

Where can I get a hat like that? Sounds Godly.
Philetus

I think you can order them at KGOV

 

[Philetus]

These are good points, but I don't understand how open theists can say that God's omnipotence is extra-Biblical, i.e. derived from philosophy rather than the Bible (if they do say that, but I think they do). For example, as I'm sure you know, one of God's many names is El Shaddai, which means God Almighty. I think Almighty is pretty synonymous with omnipotent.

docrob57,
If I understand OVT it does not deny that God is either omnipotent or omniscient, but is wrestling with the delineations of both. What kind of power? What is knowable? And perhaps the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we arrive at our understanding?

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

What is KGOV?

 

[docrob57]

docrob57,
If I understand OVT it does not deny that God is either omnipotent or omniscient, but is wrestling with the delineations of both. What kind of power? What is knowable? And perhaps the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we arrive at our understanding?

Philetus

I see. Well, as you know, John Lennon said "THere's nothing you can do that can't be done."

But seriously, I think it is reasonable to allow science, at least to some extent, to inform our understanding. The Bible is the prime source, of course, but, as the discussions that frequently arise here demonstrate, we can use the Bible and come to very different answers about these matters. Fortunately, the most important matters of theology are much more clearly understood.

In any event, and like CLete, I tire of writing about it, but it is my understanding of causality which leads me to reject at least certain propositions of the OV, particularly that God does not have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge and, as a consequence, that God sometimes changes his mind and that some legitimate prophecies are false.

 

[docrob57]

What is KGOV?

www.kgov.com

 

[seekinganswers]

Philetus,

First of all, I want to say this is one of the most grace-filled posts I have read on this site, and I thank you for submitting yourself to the grace of God, that grace might be what unites us in peace, and that it might call us to uplift and edify one another through Christ. Though we may disagree with one another on certain points, I find that the common ground we share in Christ still unites us. So regardless of our disagreements, peace brother, and may the Lord help us to reconcile our differences.

But now I will respond to what you have written, and I will do it joyfully.

From what perspective then do you suggest creatures can know anything about God?

For this question, I only look to the scriptures. And though my stance on these verses that are scattered throughout the scriptures is not the final word on them, I still think we ought to submit to these words. Repeatedly in the scriptures it is stated that "No one knows God," or that "no one has ever seen God." So as soon as we are put in our limited point of view, according to the scriptures, we have already committed idolatry in trying to understand God from that point of view. The question I have is simple. Does the Muslim or the Budhist who views God from their own human perspective know God? They have received from a source that claims to be divine, but still, they are idolators. An even more pertinent question would be, is the God that the Jews have turned to in their rejection of Christ truly God, or is their God an idol as well? Or how about this one: is the God of the Christians who go to the New World and conquor the native peoples in the name of their God truly God, or have they turned to an idol?

You see, Philetus, my objections are not with the claims that God has been revealed to us. My objections are with those who would claim that the revelation to them gives them the right to use that revelation however they please, or makes right they interpretations of that revelation of God. The Montonists claimed to follow Christ, but though they appeal to this true revelation of God, their use of it is far from true.

The Open View is an honest reconsideration of the self-revelation God has made known to us, what is said of God in scripture (all that is said of God in scripture) and what is caused or allowed to be seen in the person of Jesus as opposed to starting with Augustine’s exaggerated view of immutability. The insistence that God is unaffected by creation as a notion that he obviously brought to the table from his earlier association with Greek Philosophy and (inspite of his many good writings) is not a week argument to be dismissed lightly. Augustine has become so idolized in much of the church that even to question his starting point is seen as paramount to heresy. I commend THEOLOGYONLINE for allowing this discussion. It seems to be so threatening to many that the topic has been banned on some ‘Christian Forms’.

Despite what you may think, my views do not start with Augustine. Now I might come to a different conclusion about Augustine than you would, but I do not start with him. And I in no way "saintify" him in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church has done. He is a member of the saints as he gathers with his brothers and sisters in Christ; he is not a saint in the singular.

I don't start with the immutible God. I start with the transcendant God, i.e. the God who is other, the God who remains mysterious. This is not some remnant of paganism brought over to Christianity by Augustine, it is simply the reality of the revelation. If God is truly to be immanent, God first must be transcendant. If God truly is to be close to us, God must first be other than us. For the God who is in need of us, is a God who is not sustained in the love of the Father, Son and Spirit, and certainly is not a God who can draw us into Godself to share in his glory and love. This is not to make God impersonal, it is to define personhood in God; it is not to make God non-relational, it is to place relationship within God. This is why Paul can announce to the Athenians, using the very words of one of their poets, "In God we live and move and have our being."

Thus God is not the one who needs to be made whole through relationship. God is relationship and personhood, and that is all sustained in the love held between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (which was from age to age, and from before the ages of the earth). God doesn't call us to a new relationship; God invites us into the very relationship that God already shares within Godself. It is not a selfish thing to do. It is a wonderous gift that God gives to us (asking for nothing in return).

So relationship must be held in God if it is to be true relationship, for anything that is grounded in our own will and selves is nothing more than a corruption of that true relationship held in God. Our relationships are driven by mutual desires for fulfillment. God's relationship is an invitation to share in the love that is already held in God. That is why in the garden God gives us the same invitation, to have our lives sustained in him (to eat from the tree of life). And that is also why he calls us away from the false relation that would take right into our own hands and make us "like gods knowing good and evil (or setting what is right in our own eyes)" (to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil). It is not to remove God's care for the Creation to say that God is sustained in God's self, for the God who has invited us to share in God is also the God who has already poured out himself into the Creation from the very beginning. The God who was other than us has poured shown fourth in the Creation to invite us to share in God. The Spirit and the Word were at work from the very beginning, and continue their work to its culmination, to its telos.

Is there danger in personalizing God? Yes! It is risky for both God and us.

There is a danger in personalizing God, but it is not a risk for God. For God is always sustained in the very relationship of the Trinity. But for us in our attempts to personalize God in the way we understand relationship (i.e. mutual fulfillment), it is dangerous because we make God into an idol. As soon as we understand relationship as we encounter it in our distorted persons, and try to fit God into that relationship, we have committed idolatry, and have submitted ourselves to a god that remains within us. This is not a selfless God, but is a god who only cares about the Creation because it has something to offer him, i.e. personal fulfillment. If we didn't have anything to offer God, God wouldn't care about us.

So in your attempts to make a God whose fate is tied to ours, you have in fact done the very opposite of what you set out to do. Rather than a God who gives freely of himself for our benefit, you have fashioned a god who is no better than us, who has become like us. This is where we need to repent of our god, that we might be freed from our understanding of God and liberated in that our life (I prefer life over the word fate) is now tied to the life of God (which is unending life, indeed!!).

You seem to fail to recognize that scripture is full of God’s terms for personal relationships.

I am not unaware of this. That is why I continue to defer to the very revelation of Godself to us when I speak of God, for to do anything else would be idolatrous. But what I want to stress is that the word of God does not bind God, but God is the very word that God speaks. Kings give commands that can come back on them out of control. The gods of the Greeks can pronounce a judgment on the earth that turns on them to threaten even them. So when the flood occurs in the Greek stories of it, the gods have to run and hide from the very flood they have produced. God's word doesn't become a burden on God, but God's word goes out and produces what God has set out to do. For the word is not sustained by the obedience of the Creation (although it calls us to obedience), but God in Godself will bring it about. God's word on his relationship to us is not a means for us to control God. And as soon as we think that we can twist the words of God for our benefit (that God can be made vulnerable through God's own words) than we become our own destruction. Christ may seem to us a vulnerable God on the cross, but the scriptures make it very clear that Christ on the cross is the very power of God, the God as a king who has come unto his throne!

If the bible is not the revelation of God’s attempt at relating to humanity, what is it?

It is not an attempt. It is the successful relationship of God with humanity. The very fact that we have the scriptures even now is testimony to the fact that God has succeeded.

If Jesus was doing anything other than making the heart, mind and will of God known in order to relate, what was he doing?

It is not God's attempt to relate to us as we relate to one another (as maybe a contingent being would relate to a contingent being). God relates to us a non-contingent being to a contingent being. And that means God invites us to be sustained in him; God doesn't long to be sustained by us. God is not fulfilled by us. We have nothing to offer him. He is sustained in the love of the Trinity. But the mystery of God is God's grace that would drive God to invite the Creation to share in the love of God.

If God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto himself for the purpose of relationship, what is the purpose of reconciliation?

He is! And the purpose of the reconciliation that God gives us is the New Creation. God sets aside what we were in sin and makes us into who we ought to be.

I see God in Christ as redeeming and refashioning me in His image for the purpose of relationship that involves me; something a Closed view either does not allow for or frustrates beyond comprehension. The danger of misrepresenting God is not new.

God redeems and refashions us so that we might truly share in the relationship that is God, not to form a new one. Worship for God is not some egotistical "give me props" session that God lords over the Creation. Worship is the invitation by God for the Creation to share in God's rest.

I would argue that rather than “define your relationship with God” ... just have one. I think you will find that God is far more loving, redemptive and even personable than any theology can imagine let alone define.

I'm sorry, Philetus, but to just have a relationship with God will not do. A Muslim cannot just have a relationship with God, nor can a Budhist. Oh, they can be related to God despite their idolatry, because no matter how much we might think our lives are sustained within ourselves, we are still sustained in God (his rain falls on both the righteous and unrighteous). But in order to share in the eternal sustanance of God that is eternal life, we must bring ourselves low, and humbly submit to the revelation that God has shown forth in Christ. God is not a personable God. But in God a person can be made a true person.

As for the bad guys playing catch with live babies on bayonets, (an evil you used to illustrate your point that makes me shudder) I cannot idolize God out of that one. I refuse to make God responsible for such evil. ...He has the last word and he is faithful.

And that we can both agree on, and I would say is true power. For a God that must respond to evil on its own terms is no God at all.

So where do we begin to understand God? We must start with the God on the cross in creation relating to God’s creatures. Why the cross? After all , it is mere foolishness to the Greeks But, the cross is the wisdom of God for those being saved from using bayonets on babies.

I agree with you, but I'm confused as to why you would change the words of the scriptures. The cross is not the wisdom of God for salvation (though it becomes wisdom as it turns into foolishness even the wisest wisdom of men). But the cross with regards to salvation is the very power of God (dunomei). God is not a passive in the cross, but is the most active that God can be. The cross is power, not weakness. For in the cross God defeats the very authority of sin. Those who submitted to the framework of the world of sin, where one must overcome one's enemies by force, those are the very people who have submitted themselves to foolishness, for the only true power is from God, so that even God's weakness (from our perspective) is stronger than the strongest of men's strengths. God isn't passive in our salvation (waiting for us simply to respond) but God is active, making us look quite like the passive ones in the relationship.

Though it does not always save the victims from the acts of evil men, it has the power to save and make new the men capable of such acts. The cross is God’s terms. The cross is the power behind “Go and sin no more.”

Now you got it. But know that even the victims are given power in the cross, for God will not ignore their cries. God does raise the dead!!!

The cross does not define God. The cross reveals the true nature of God. It defines us! It does not even defend God, as the problem of evil often assumes. The cross holds no defense only offence. The cross exposes us and evil for who’s it is and reveals God as the greatest risk taker for loves sake.

Amen, except the "risk taker" part, for the cross is not a risk, but is the power of God at its fullness. God doesn't need to respond to evil in kind, but can overcome evil through good. And now in the cross we see that we are called to do the same. The only risk that is exposed is to those who would believe that they can sustain their lives in themselves, who would continue to live under the dominion of sin and reject the invitation of their Creator.

I too, am horrified at a God who allows evil ... horrified at God for allowing evil. And my horror is intensified when I come to the cross where God suffers as I do, but more importantly suffers because of me and still desires to relate to me. At the cross, I am horrified because I see evil for what it is ... my own. Not God’s. My horror turns to brokenness not because God could have stopped evil, but precisely because he did not. He who said do not repay evil for evil confronts evil on his own terms and in keeping with his own rules at great expense and risk in order to relate to me ... on his terms!

God goes to the cross to reveal himself to the world, Yes. But this is not a risk on God's part, for God is not threatened by God's own Creation. God Created us. We can't threaten God. We might think that we can create things that threaten us, but that is only because we don't recognize that our creations are manipulations of another, not creations unto themselves. But God is the one true Creator, and so is not threatened by the Creation. But the cross does another thing. At the cross God not only reveals God's self in fullness, but also reveals humanity in the image of God. We are not the true image of God, for we have exchanged that image for a lie. We allowed ourselves to be distorted to become like gods. But in Christ, God comes near to us to reveal Godself, and through that revelation reveals who we are called to be as humanity created in the image of God. In Christ we are truly a new creation, behold old things have passed and all has become new!!

That really changes men and that changes everything.

How can you have it both ways? Either few are willing to accept God’s call or no one is able to resist it.

God remains God. And the relationship of God is sustained in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit). But we are given an invitation to enter into what is God, to be found in God, and live in God's rest, as true worshipers of our God. It is not forced on us, but we do not remain if we resist.

God's relationship to the world is irresistible not in our obedience or disobedience to God. But it is irresistible because God's relationship will remain always. The Trinity is eternal, from before the ages, through all ages, and into the ages to come. And we who chose to participate in that, who receive God's grace, will be sustained in eternal life. While those who "resist" God will come to nothing (ergo resulting in a complete lack of resistance).

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

Hey docrob! What's with the Knight avatar? I thought for a minute that Knight was saying that he rejects at least certain propositions of the OV! :shocked:

 

[docrob57]

Hey docrob! What's with the Knight avatar? I thought for a minute that Knight was saying that he rejects at least certain propositions of the OV! :shocked:

No, it's Famous Theologians week, and since I didn't know any OV theologians, I used Knight. I thought about using you, actually.

 

[seekinganswers]

I know what you said and you are wrong. Time dialation, according to relativity is not merely an illusion. It isn't that my time simply appears to run more slowly to an observer traveling at a slower speed than I, its that my time actually does in fact run slower than does his. The fast I go the slow my time runs and at the speed of light time stops all together. It doesn't just seem to stop it does stop. That's what Relativity says, period. You are simply attempting to say otherwise because Bob has presented a puzzle you can't solve based on this obviously self-contradictory peice of "science".

As for me, I've debated this issue until I'm blue in the face and see no reason to rehash it again. As I said before, if you think you're qualified then speak with Knight and see about debating Bob on it. He would do a better job than I could anyway.

Resting in Him,
Clete

And you are ignorant about the Special Theory of Relativity, Clete.

Time does not travel any slower or faster within a frame of reference. As you accelerate to greater speeds you do not slow down, and time for those entering a black hole does not stop (it only appears to stop for those witnessing it from outside of the reference frame). Current astrophysicists can see evidence from other sources that matter does actually fall past the event horizon of a black hole. The energy being released in the form of x-ray bursts gives evidence to that. But these same astophysicists still submit to the theories of Einstein, that if we were to observe an object nearing the event horizon of a black hole, it would appear to us to stop. We are in frames of reference, and relativity only is a question when we are trying to bridge the gap between frames of reference. If one could enter a black hole (without being distroyed from a distance by the extreme amounts of energy errupting from it) one would drop into the hole in the same way that one falls to the earth. If we were to time the experiment within our our own reference frame, it would all be done in a moment!

Bob has presented a puzzle based on a false premise, and therefore, his puzzle is irrelevent. Bob gave a false premise for his little experiment, and has proven nothing except that he is a fool when it comes to special relativity, and doesn't know where to admit that he doesn't know enough about it to make a commentary on it.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

SEEKINGANSWERS,

Wow! I missed some good stuff while I was gone.

As for all this time talk, I was the kid who didn’t fall asleep often enough while reading about it and I’m paying for it in my old age. Augh! Jet lag. But, the plane is a great place for reading.

I am less concerned with theories of time themselves and am more concerned that the theories of time are being used as an argument to define the kind of God we can know while much of what the scripture says about God is being dismissed as anthropological.

Time is a most fascinating topics of interest and has much to teach us about the universe we find ourselves in. However, how is starting with ‘time’ to define God different than starting with a philosophical theory of omnipotence or omnisciency? Even if we prove that it is possible to ‘time travel’ is that just cause to dismiss the scriptural indication that God may choose not to? I don’t think the nature of time is the first question.

What is the starting place for understanding the nature of God? Time? Sounds all to creation centered for my small mind. What say you, Seekinganswers?

Let us fall asleep tonight reading the bible.
Philetus

I agree. I was just taking up the challange to refute what Bob had said on the post submitted above. I in know way am trying to understand God through the Special Theory of Relativity, but am merely pointing out the ignorance of those who would claim they understand it and have the right to comment on it, when in fact they do not.

Peace,
Michael

 

[seekinganswers]

I did not say the theories are totally false or not applicable to physical issues. They cannot be applied to the eternal God in the same way you apply them to space travel. Perhaps Clete could respond to your concerns.

Godrulz,

If you reject the premise of Einstein's theory that time is a dimension of space, than you have rejected the entire theory. Everything that Einstein says in his theory of reletivity centers on the premise that space is actually a four-dimentional space-time continuum. If you reject this, you either revert to Newton (and continue to deal with the problems there-in) or you reject the only plausible theory (all of it) without giving any other option (unless you have published another theory of your own I don't know about).

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

Godrulz,

If you reject the premise of Einstein's theory that time is a dimension of space, than you have rejected the entire theory. Everything that Einstein says in his theory of reletivity centers on the premise that space is actually a four-dimentional space-time continuum. If you reject this, you either revert to Newton (and continue to deal with the problems there-in) or you reject the only plausible theory (all of it) without giving any other option (unless you have published another theory of your own I don't know about).

Peace,
Michael

There are actually many such alternative theories. Ten minutes of searching the internet will yeild half a dozen at least, perhaps more if you know what to look for.

 

[seekinganswers]

There are actually many such alternative theories. Ten minutes of searching the internet will yeild half a dozen at least, perhaps more if you know what to look for.

And all would be the theories of a bunch of jobs who think that no familialarity with current scientific theories makes them qualified to make commentary on them. The internet is not a good source of information, its just a good place to dump it.

None of those half dozen theories that you point out none are able to be upheald through observable and testable experimentation. Einstein's theories have undergone a rigor a scientific evaluation, and have come out on top every single time. Now there is the current string theory models which are building on Einstein (and looking to the world of the very small as opposed to the vast reaches of space), but I would imagine you would have even greater qualms with this theory, because it posits either a an 11 or 22 dimentional string and brane world. So if you had problems with 4 dimentional space-time, you bet you're gonna have problems with string theory.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

And you are ignorant about the Special Theory of Relativity, Clete.

Time does not travel any slower or faster within a frame of reference. As you accelerate to greater speeds you do not slow down, and time for those entering a black hole does not stop (it only appears to stop for those witnessing it from outside of the reference frame). Current astrophysicists can see evidence from other sources that matter does actually fall past the event horizon of a black hole. The energy being released in the form of x-ray bursts gives evidence to that. But these same astophysicists still submit to the theories of Einstein, that if we were to observe an object nearing the event horizon of a black hole, it would appear to us to stop. We are in frames of reference, and relativity only is a question when we are trying to bridge the gap between frames of reference. If one could enter a black hole (without being distroyed from a distance by the extreme amounts of energy errupting from it) one would drop into the hole in the same way that one falls to the earth. If we were to time the experiment within our our own reference frame, it would all be done in a moment!

Bob has presented a puzzle based on a false premise, and therefore, his puzzle is irrelevent. Bob gave a false premise for his little experiment, and has proven nothing except that he is a fool when it comes to special relativity, and doesn't know where to admit that he doesn't know enough about it to make a commentary on it.

Peace,
Michael

You and I are finished on this subject. I've read perhaps a dozen books on the subject, I majored in physics while in college, and have been interested in the subject since Junior High School. For anyone who doesn't know me from Adam to sit there and tell me that Relativity (Special or General either one) does not teach that time slows down and then in the same breath tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about is very simply a liar. I don't have time for blatant bald faced liars.

:wave2:

 

[seekinganswers]

You and I are finished on this subject. I've read perhaps a dozen books on the subject, I majored in physics while in college, and have been interested in the subject since Junior High School. For anyone who doesn't know me from Adam to sit there and tell me that Relativity (Special or General either one) does not teach that time slows down and then in the same breath tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about is very simply a liar. I don't have time for blatant bald faced liars.

:wave2:

Yes, because majoring in Physics in college makes you an expert on it? I admit I'm not an expert. I'm repeating what my physics instructors in both High School and College taught me (who had devoted their lives to the endeavor; not just a few years of their education). And they make a clear distinction between the actuality of what occurs and the appearance of it. The fact is matter does fall into a black hole, and we have evidence for that from the x-ray bursts (which come from a frame of reference that is similar to ours). Time does not stop in a black hole, but only appears to do so from our frame of reference. The evidence you gave to me even used that very language. So your appeal to being an expert is absurd, because the very evidence you gave contradicts you.

I will trust people who have devoted their lives to a topic and continue to be humble about it much more than I will trust those who dabble in a subject than arrogantly claim mastery of it. And it's all the fault of a corrupt educational system that will divorce the work of classes from the information given. They exchange information and "grades" for money; and it doesn't matter how much a person works. It's all very corrupt.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

Yes, because majoring in Physics in college makes you an expert on it? I admit I'm not an expert. I'm repeating what my physics instructors in both High School and College taught me (who had devoted their lives to the endeavor; not just a few years of their education). And they make a clear distinction between the actuality of what occurs and the appearance of it. The fact is matter does fall into a black hole, and we have evidence for that from the x-ray bursts (which come from a frame of reference that is similar to ours). Time does not stop in a black hole, but only appears to do so from our frame of reference. The evidence you gave to me even used that very language. So your appeal to being an expert is absurd, because the very evidence you gave contradicts you.

I will trust people who have devoted their lives to a topic and continue to be humble about it much more than I will trust those who dabble in a subject than arrogantly claim mastery of it. And it's all the fault of a corrupt educational system that will divorce the work of classes from the information given. They exchange information and "grades" for money; and it doesn't matter how much a person works. It's all very corrupt.

Peace,
Michael

I never claimed to be an expert. I simply proved that I know more about the subject than you assumed that I knew and that you where making crap up as you go. I'll tell you once more and for the last time, relativity does not say that time dialation is an illusion but that it is real. It predicts that if a person left Earth at near the speed of light that their time would run more slowly than it does for those of us still here and when that person returned he would find all of his friends and family were all long dead even though only maybe a few months or even less had passed for him. It doesn't predict that they would seem to be dead or that they would look like they had died of old age, it predicts that they would have lived their lives thinking everything wise fine (which is was) and then they died decades later and that you, having been travelling really really fast, only ages a few weeks or months. The effects of time dialation are real according to Relativity and statement to the contrary is either a lie or outright ignorance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

These are good points, but I don't understand how open theists can say that God's omnipotence is extra-Biblical, i.e. derived from philosophy rather than the Bible (if they do say that, but I think they do). For example, as I'm sure you know, one of God's many names is El Shaddai, which means God Almighty. I think Almighty is pretty synonymous with omnipotent.

Open Theists affirm God's omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean that He always does all that He could do, nor that He exhaustively controls everything (by His choice). It also does not mean that He can do absurd things. Giving significant freedom to other creatures is a voluntary limitation of His power.

 

[seekinganswers]

I never claimed to be an expert. I simply proved that I know more about the subject than you assumed that I knew and that you where making crap up as you go. I'm tell you once more and for the last time. Relativity does not say that time dialation is an illusion but that it is real. It predicts that if a person left Earth at near the speed of light that their time would run more slowly than it does for those of us still here and when that person returned he would find all of his friends and family were all long dead even though only maybe a few months or even less had passed for him. It doesn't predict that they would seem to be dead or that they would look like they had died of old age, it predicts that they would have lived their lives thinking everything wise fine (which is was) and then they died decades later and that you, having been travelling really really fast, only ages a few weeks or months. The effects of time dialation are real according to Relativity and statement to the contrary is either a lie or outright ignorance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But I'm speaking about the time as measured within a frame of reference. If you were to ask the observer from earth whether time slowed or not for a person near a very strong gravitational frame of reference, the observer on earth would say yes. But the observer within the gravitational frame would answer no. And if you were to ask the observer located in a very strong gravitational field what she saw when looking to earth, she would say time sped up. However, the person on earth would say that time progressed normally. So who is correct? Does time slow down for the person in the gravitational field or does time speed up for the person located on earth?

The answer that is so shocking :dizzy: is that time is not changing on either end of the experiment but the massive object is causing distortions in the fabric of space. Time is not the variable in this little hypothetical, but gravitation is. So what has changed is gravity's affects on a person, not time. The progression of time for the persons within any frame of reference is the same. Here the second postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity must hold true: The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. So if you are in the same frame of reference as the very strong gravitational field (i.e. you are within the influence of the gravitational field), time progresses for you at the same rate as it did on earth; your clock will tick in a manner you would expect it to. If you are in the frame of reference of earth, time progresses at the same rate as an observer within the same gravitational influence; clocks tick at the expected rate. Time dilation is only the visible affects of the distortion in space produced by differing gravitational fields or as Einstein words it differing inertial frames (and gravitation in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the equivalent of an acceleration).

So, yes, the person within the influence of a strong gravitational field will come back and find that his friends have aged before his eyes, but his friends will only see that he has not aged at the expected rate. It is not that they have been aging at different rates from one another (i.e. time has slowed or sped up). The discrepency comes from gravity and its affects in distorting space. The variable in this little experiment is gravity, not time.

And these affects have been observed in quantifiable tests. Particle accelerators have shown that particles moving close to the speed of light experience this time dilation (or length contraction depending on which frame of reference you are in). Muons travelling from the sun to the earth would never make it to earth if Einstein's theories were incorrect. And we also need to remember the experiment done with the atomic clocks. These tests show that time dilation occurs (although the visible affects for human beings are imperceptible; we're talking second minutia at our non-relativistic speeds). Nontheless, without compensation for relativity in calculations for space travel (where one projects a minute error over millions of miles) we never would have reached the planets, for we would have over-shot them all if we had used Newtonian calculations to plan the trips for our probes.

So in your claim that general relativity states that time slows down, you are incorrect, my friend.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Philetus]

seekinganswers,

Thank you for your kind words. Grace may be the only thing the church has to offer that the world can find no other place. The common ground we find in Christ is indeed greater than our minds can seem to grasp. Your reply post is by far clearer than your first and that is in no way a slam. It’s just part of the tug and toe of internet communication. I’m learning more than I meant to here, both about the church and its diverse beauty as well as how much I have to learn. Thanks for taking the time. This may end up being a marathon. So be it. I love it.

If you want to skip all this and deal with Clete and time, no problem. My feelings are not on the line. I even invite anyone to jump in. But after posting this in the box, I realize we may need to deal with much less in each post. This aint Battle Royal! And I've already told you more than I know. :crackup:

We agree on so much. YET, to say God takes a risk, is not to suggest that God in anyway is dependant on humans to be God. Whether anyone responds to the love of God or not, does not determine God’s success or failure. God is and will always be. God succeeded on the cross because he was true to himself: Jesus was faithful to the will of the Father and the Father was faithful to himself. The resurrection is proof of God’s success. And you are right, what a marvelous illustration of relationship. It is our example par-excellent. I would even go so far as to suggest that the ultimate motivation for Jesus in going to the cross was not even his love for us. (Though he did in fact love us beyond measure.) God loved us so much that he sent his son. The son loved the father so much he capitulated to the Father’s will instead of the temptation to let the cup pass. The rub is in understanding the why and how of our getting in on it.
First, we agree it is all God’s doing. It is his will, his deed. The watershed seems to be over whether or not our response has any bearing on our salvation. I believe it does. In that since it is risky to the extent that God’s love my fail only in that I resist it. That does not implicate God as being less than God, or God’s love as being less than perfect, but only that I am not as smart as I think I am. So, I find myself in the garden, sweating bullets, surrendering to the only offer that affords a way of escape. All I care to know is Jesus in the power of his resurrection, to share in his suffering in growing conformity to his death. It is not the only option God has given me, but to be crucified with Christ is the only way to live in relationship with God. It just doesn’t get any more personal than that.

You are very close to the truth in saying that the risk taken is not to God’s self, or to his autonomy. The risk, regardless of the outcome, is no threat to God as God.. But, by grace through faith, allowing freedom of choice, there is a certain risk that the creature may in fact destroy itself and even destroy others (temporally at least) in the process. (Adam and Eve, Men with bayonets, etc..) On the other hand, the creature may freely choose to accept God’s gracious offer and ‘save himself’ and even others, by turning and putting the bayonet down and going to the cross instead of sending other. I would grant that by giving us the choice to respond to or reject God’s love in Christ on the cross, God has taken a risk only insofar as it determines our own future, both temporal and eternal, not whether or not God will be any less God if we perish by neglecting so great a salvation.

I agree that in the Godhead, he is complete and lacks nothing. He does not need our help, but desires our cooperation and participation. Why? That’s a big mystery. “What is man that thou art mindful of him?”

"No one knows God," or that "no one has ever seen God."
BUT, Jesus does and has and makes him known.

As for the question of a Muslim or Buddhist knowing God, I can only say that unless they know God in Christ any knowledge of God they may have is greatly limited. Paul says that what can be known of God is made plain in the things he has made. So, why don’t we all know God? Because as you pointed out, we have exchanged the truth about God for a lie. Paul says we suppress the truth about God. Even with scripture, and the Jews had scripture, it is possible to mis-read or mis-interpret it, or even to reject the very Word they were intrusted to provide. They rejected the very Messiah they expected. Jesus said of them that they searched the scripture thinking they would find life, yet refused to come to the one scripture pointed to.

I know we agree in spirit. My point is to simply admit that with all the revelation provided ... it is still possible to miss the truth. I don’t know what God was doing before God created the heavens and the earth, But I know that I will be part of God’s future because in Jesus God has come near and revealed the Father. It isn’t even clear what we shall be but we know that when he appears we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. To speculate as to what God is like away from creation is risky, to receive him as incarnate is Life. To start with transcendence is ‘ifiy’ at best. To place all our hope on and faith in Immanuel is not at all risky.

If this is using revelation as a personal licence to do as one pleases, I fail to see how. I have already admitted that there are countless abuses of human freedom. We find them among every stripe of Christian on the planet including hyper Calvinist who deny any freedom of will. (I’m not saying Calvinist are all evil. Don’t start WWIII) Just because there are abuses does not make the position wrong. I agree,”though they appeal to this true revelation of God, their use of it is far from true.” who ever they are. Can you name a group within the Closed View camp that doesn’t have it’s a flakes? No.

If God is truly to be immanent, God first must be transcendant.

Of course, and then if we are to know him, he must become incarnate. Transcendent does not mean immutable in the hyper Greek definition. God’s character does not change. But, the very act of creating space, changes the transcendent God into an immanent God. He may continue to be outside of creation while including creations and holding it all together by his presence. I don’t know what God does outside of creation. I have my hands full just taking hold of that for which Christ has taken hold of me.

There are aspects of God that remain mysterious and transcendent (out of reach), but it isn’t the unknown aspects of God that give me hope. God is other than us but not in an I-it way in either direction. God is other than us as I-thou. God does not need us in order to be complete. God desires to complete us by relating to us on terms we can understand. That does not make him less than God. God is all that and more. So much more in fact that he can let us decide and adjust without compromising his own person. It is only in Jesus that we find out who God is and who we are and why we are here.

Such relationship makes us whole. God is whole without us. We are nothing without God. The relationship God invites us to share in may not be new to God but it is certainly new to us. That’s why we refer to it as conversion, new birth and a dozen other names. I agree that human relationships are but a mere shadow of the perfect relationships of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Still there are surely some similarities. Jesus did say that his desire was that we be one even as He and the Father are one. I don’t mean to be entirely facetious but I suspect that The Father, The Son, the Holy Spirit and me will require some adjustment on everybody’s part. Trust me or just ask my wife. The Father makes himself known, the Son lays down his life, the Spirit strives with us ... none of which requires foreknowledge, just wisdom, love, grace, sacrifice, persistence, competence and consistency, all in divine measure, toward the goal .... our salvation.

It does not compromise God in anyway to say that God chooses to not know ahead of time how I will decide. It is equally preposterous to even suggest that the existence of evil changes the character of God unless we make a transcendent, omnipotent God ultimately responsible for it. To leave God out is total foolishness. To suggest that salvation is not something that God makes available but something we have total control over is nonsense. To say that God can get close enough to save us without affect is ... well ... just as bazar. We do not personalize God ... that would be idiolatry. God is personable. That’s why he created persons in his own image. The image in creatures is marred. The image of God in the person of Christ Jesus is not. Grace paves the way for relationship between the persons of the Trinity and everybody else. I think the relationships Jesus enjoyed in the company of persons while where on earth were in at least some way, fulfilling to him. Yet, he could say get behind me, Satan, when the chips were down. I think that in some small way he will experience joy and a sense of fulfilment in saying, well done, good and faithful servant. I think there will be some sense of excitement even within the Godhead when the faithful are presented to the Father. I think there will be genuine celebration in heaven. I think the story of the certain man who had two sons, reveals more about the Father than just a transcendency.

Don’t be ridiculous. God’s fate is not decided by my choice. Mine is. That is not a God that I would fashion. I would rather have a God that saves everybody regardless of choices. Or maybe a God that saves me whether he saves anybody else or not. I might fashion a God that saves some and not others because he is not affected by gain or loss and is indifferent to the ones lost and so really doesn’t lose anything. I might even fashion a God that...on and on...... But, in all honesty, I would never fashion a God who places the weight of one’s eternal destiny squarely on the shoulders of the one making his own decisions without providing everything necessary to ensure that individual has all the tools to make such a decision. You can not accuse me of creating such a God in my own image. It is the God reveled to us in scripture and more perfectly to us on the cross. Your suggestion that I might have made up such a God to suit myself or inflate my own ego is unfounded and false.

I could turn your words on you in this respect: In light of the great expense and effort God has gone to in order to draw near to us, our need is to repent of making God so transcendent and unknowable that we take God’s person out of the picture entirely. To have the Son is to have life!



Agreed: God is not made vulnerable by his word. But, if God’s word is true then God is surely faithful to his word.

I’m not so sure that the bible doesn’t include some failures to relate along the way. Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell. I’m not saying that God failed, but Sodom and Gomorrah sure did. But even in that circumstance Abraham and God seemed to relate. OK, God relates perfectly. We don’t. Sounds like there is at least room for improvement. The very fact that we are having a discussion about the meaning of scripture and nature of God means that the jury is still out on the success or failure of scripture to convince perfectly. Which version?

Jesus is not God’s attempt to get us to relate to God as we do to each other. If that’s what you read then it’s my failure to communicate. If you assume that is what I meant the that is another matter. The cross is God’s most noble attempt to get us to relate to each other as he relates to the son and to us. That men still use bayonets is proof that it has not succeeded in all men ... not yet at least. That is not to suggest that there is something wrong or lacking in the effort of God in Christ, but to admit that it hasn’t changed all men. To say it wasn’t intended to change all men just some men is not sufficient.

The being of God (God as a non-contingent being) is immutable. God is love and that will never change. But due to the nature of the creation he has sovereignly chosen to created, circumstances change. I decide to respond to God (or not) and God has decided to honor my decision. That changes the relationship and only one of the relaters ... me. That establishes a causal connection between God and myself.

If it is true that God has created us to worship, love and enjoy Him forever, is it not also true that He has created us to enjoy us and love us forever as well? When we reject God, His relationship to us is changed. In the garden it resulted in eviction and distance. When we repent and are reconciled that relationship is restored, i.e.. changed back. The distance is closed. Worship is not an invitation by God ... it is a proper response to God’s invitation to enter rest and stop trying to save ourselves independently. The invitation is to come. Proper response is to worship. It is neither egotistical to worship nor a prop for anybody. In view of God’s mercy, as Paul puts it, it is our reasonable response to offer our selves in worship.


Just have a relationship with God! Whether a Muslim or a Methodist, a Baptist or a Buddhist, you will only have the kind of relationship with God that either of us has described in and through Jesus. Whether you begin with transcendence or in creation at the cross, whether you think God changes or you think that is heresy; have a relationship with God in Jesus Christ. Whether you think the future is static or dynamic get to know Jesus. It isn’t important whether or not God knows what we will have for breakfast in the morning ... it is important for us to know Jesus ... lest we here him say ... I never knew you. Of course it matters what kind of relationship we have with God in Christ because it is that relationship that informs every other potential relationship we could hope for.

Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbor as your self. Even if that has no affect on God it will change the world. And it will change where you spend eternity. We have God’s guarantee on it.

Even if I slip up and misstate scripture, I’m so embarrassed. Thanks for the correction ... the cross is the power of God. God is not passive in the since that the cross is of no effect. But, there is a passivity in that Jesus accepts and God allows what others do, without retaliation or resistance. Such is indeed foolishness to a power hungry war mongering world. And that informs our understanding of who God is every bit as much as transcendency and omnipotence. It is not how powerful is God but how does God use unlimited power. Love is the over ruling influence, not transcendency.

If as you say, the greatest display of power is the cross, (“is the power of God at its fullness”)
then how can you say that God has not in some way limited the use of absolute power to stop evil. How does the cross save a victim of surd evil? How is that not even a minimal risk to God who raises the dead?

I don’t yet follow how you can have both resistence to and an irresistible God. Except to idolize God out of responsibility for claiming to be irresistible in that he already knew the decision and therefore didn’t really call the resistors in the first place. That’s either double talk or I’m not understanding you. If you have a new kind of twist on double predestination I need to hear it.

Philetus

If we keep posting these long threads, we are going to get very lonely.

 

[NewStenographer]

As a final note, many (particularly those who don't really believe in God) claim that things like quantum uncertainty (the fact that it is impossible to know certain related quantities with complete accuracy) suggest that determinism is completely fictitious, that even God cannot know with complete certainty what will happen, although he could know the exact probabilities involved. I do not have a satisfactory answer to this challenge, but I believe there is one, and my belief is not unfounded. There are some scientists who are beginning to wonder whether or not quantum mechanics can be made deterministic again through certain esoteric methods.

So, the guy who said that was an idiot. :chuckle:

I just got finished arguing that God exists outside of time, and then I make a statement that assumes God exists in time. So, strike the above bit. God doesn't need to "predict." He simply sees.